6 Private Street/Flag LotsCITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 C~O, Ce, ter Drive, PO Box I47
Cha,hasse,. Mi,,esota 55317
&o,e 612.937.1900
Ge, eral I:ax 612. 93 7. 5 73 9
E, gi,eeri,g ~-~x 612.93 7. 9152
&~b/ic Sari'O, hkx' 612.934.2524
I~b wwtt~d.:ha,hasse,.m,.,s
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Planning Commission
Sharmin Al-Jarl, Senior Planner
May 3 1, 2000
Private Streets/Flag Lots - Issue Paper
At the last Planning Commission meeting, the use of flag lots was discussed. This
subject of flag lots have been brought up periodically.
On June 12, 1996, staff presented an issue paper on private streets/flag lots. The
directive came t¥om the Planning Commission to do research on this subject after
the Arundel Addition, a 2 lot subdivision, one of which was a flag lot. The newly
created parcel would have allowed a residential single family to face the back yard
of an existing single family home. The request met requirements and was
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.
After review of the issue paper, the Planning Commission decided to leave the
ordinance as is. Attached you will find the 1996 issue paper, as well as some
sample plats containing flag lots and 'private driveways that have been approved
since the adoption of the ordinance.
The private street/flag lot ordinance has served a purpose. It was created for
several reasons; to decrease environmental impact by providing flexible design, to
serve as an alternative in a given area where the development pattern may
preclude the option of constructing a public street since it may serve only one or
two lots, or to lessen the impact on lots located outside the plat (for example, if a
road is run along rear property lines). It may also be economically unviable to
build a street. At the same time, lots having little or no fi'ontage on a public right-
of-way can provide high quality home sites that are accessed in a manner that is
sensitive to these limitations. The use of private streets could also allow property
owners to maximize the utilization of their land.
It is staff s opinion that flag lots or lots served by private driveways are acceptable
and serve a purpose by providing alternative design options in unique situations.
g:\plan\sa\llag lots-issue.doc
The City ofl Ctmnhassen. A z*vwi,~ community with dean lakes, aua/in, schools, a champing downtown, thriving businer~es, and heautifu/
690 COULTER DRIi~l;;;(~,B1090X01~7F~x~6H¢~,A37S, S5E73N~ MINNESOTA 55317
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner II
DATE:
June 12, 1996
SUB J:
Private Streets/Flag lots - Issue Paper
BACKGROUND
Recently, a subdivision application was submitted to the City in which a parcel to be developed,
was located within an established neighborhood of' eight homes. The request was to subdivide
this property into two parcels and serve it through a cross access easement. The subdivision met
the ordinance requirements and staff recommended approval of it. The existing lot was the
largest lot within the subdivision. The Planning Commission directed staff to reexamine the
Private Street/Flag lot ordinance to prevent the subdivision of land from changing the character
of a neighborhood, specifically in situations where a new building site would be located in the
middle of a back yard.
ISSUES
Staff contacted other cities to see how 'they handle such situations. The City of Minnetonka
allows lots with reduced frontage on public right-of-way as well as flag lots or lots with no
frontage on public right-of-way which access by permanently recorded easements to be
considered as a variance, but may not necessarily grant it. There is a set of conditions dealing
with the terrain, environmental features and the feasibility of extending a public right-of-way
which the applicant would have to meet in order for the variance to be granted. The conditions
are similar to those used by Chanhassen. If the City adopted the variance method, then all
existing private streets will become legal non conforming. We could exclude all existing private
streets by exempting them from new ordinance amendments. However staff does not believe this
will resolve the issue of subdividing lots within existing neighborhoods and changing their
character.
Planning Commission
June 12, 1996
Page 2
The private street/flag lot ordinance has been in effect since March 26, 1990, and it has served a
purpose. It was created for several reasons; to decrease environmental impact by providing
flexible design, to serve as an alternative in a given area where the development pattern may
preclude the option of constructing a public street since it may serve only one or two lots, or to
lessen the impact on lots located outside the plat (for example if a road is run along rear property
lines). It may also be economically unviable to build a street. At the same time, lots having little
or no frontage on a public right-of-way can provide high quality home sites that are accessed in a
manner that is sensitive to these limitations. The use of private streets could also allow property
owners to maximize the utilization of their land.
In view of the various reasons and purposes of the ordinance, the Planning Commission has a
couple of options. First, the Planning Commission may wish to adopt an ordinance that would
allow parcels proposed to be subdivided and located within existing subdivisions to have a
resulting area that is equal to or larger than the average lot size within a subdivision.
Unplatted lots will not be affected by this ordinance since they are not part of a subdivision. We
recommend that lots in the RSF district, with an area of two acres or more, in any subdivision, be
exempt from these requirements, since the resulting lots will far exceed the minimum area
requirement of the RSF District.
The Planning Commission could also consider increased setback requirements to ensure there is
an adequate distance between structures. This increased setback will protect neighboring
property's privacy. The downside of requiring' larger lots and increased setback is making it
difficult for affordable houses to be built on such lots.
PROPOSAL
It is staff's opinion that what has been causing the discomfort over flag lots is the fact that the
resulting layout of the front and rear yards deviates from the norm. Typically, a front yard faces~
neighboring front yards separated by a street, and a rear yard faces a neighboring rear yard with a
possible separation of trees or fences. The layout of a house on a flag lot could make it
impossible to require front yards to face each other. An alternative that could be considered
would be buffering through berms, landscaping, natural topography, wooded areas, or fencing.
We need to realize that any added features mean added expense. If the Metropolitan Council
through the Livable Communities Act begins to promote the in-fill option, we will see more flag
lots appear before us for subdivision. Added buffering will address the city's concern of
protecting privacy and we will be able to achieve higher densities, however, we will not help the
affordability issue.
Based on the Planning Commission's input, staff will prepare any necessary code amendments.
Planning Commission
June 12, 1996
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Illustration of neighborhoods.
2. Minnetonka Private Street / Flag lot ordinance.
TYPICAL SUBDIVISIONS
FRONT YARD FACES STREET AND NEIGHBOR'S FRONT YARD, REAR YARD FACES
REAR YARD
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBO~OOD ~T~ A MIX OF POSSIBLE LOTS
H~AY-15-1996 15:43 CITY OF MINNETONKA
~ltTM brand f~x tran~mitt~ memo 7~7~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~
~12 9J9 8~44
ZO~ i~G O~D~NANC~
PAGE 35
~r¢ I4)
P.01/01
80 feet except for lots located on the mining circle of a cul-de-sac
where 65 feet is required.
variances to permit lots with reduced frontage on public fight-of-way,
neck lots or lots with no frontage on public right-of~way which access
by permanently recorded easements will be considered, but not
necessarily granted, only upon evidence that the following standards are
met:
I)
an extension of roadway is not physically feasible as determined
by the city. If the city determines that there is the need for a
roadway extension, this section shall not apply, and the
right-of-way shall be provided by easement or dedication
whichever is appropriate;
2)
severe grades make it infeasible according to the 'city to
construct a public street to minimum city standards;
3)
the city determines that a right-of-way extension would
adversely impact natural amenities including wetlands or stands
of mature trees containiag deciduous trees greater than 12"
di,'uneter or coniferous trees greater than 15' in height;
4)
there is no feasible present or future means of extending
right-of-way from other directions;
5)
the number of lots to share a common private access drive does
not exceed three; and
6) covenants which assign driveway installation and future
maintenance responsibility are submitted and recorded with the
titles of the parcels which are benefitted;
(Amended by Ordinance 89-559, 7/13/89)
---- ESRI ArcExplorer 1.1
L
! I
Map Title
flaglots
river
street
border
lots
Friday, May 26 2000
ARUNDEL
ADDITION
OF
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ,FOR
STEVE ARUNDEL'
LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
~ I hereby certify II',at this survey v,'as prupared b)' rnL, or ,der my direct sflper- p..'., rE .4--.~-~
COFFIN & GRONI]ERG, INC, visiun, and that l am a duly registered Ch'il Engineer an .... md Surveyor under
OWNER:
STEVE ARUNDEL
5150 GROVELAND SCHOOL ROAD
WAYZATA, MN. 55591
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
Lot 5, Block 1, MAPLEWOOD
GOPHER STATE ONE CALl.
I
Development Data
___w-,-°°. 1 [~:Sf.=') R
Legal Description
Typical Lot
//
Lake Lucy Ea~te~
APR 2 4 1998
Plat
tI
',', ',' ~1 L ~-4'[
~._. ' ,/,, ~, ' ·
f ~e~.~s.~/"~ ~
PRELIMINARY PLAT
GOLDEN GLOW ACRES
C~RVER BEACH RD.
TOTAL GREAJ 2.22 AC~ES
AREA EXCLU~NG
eeeo LoQ~I~ gkd, .
Phont (~t2) 4744104
SUF~:YC~
PREPARF D FOR:
JAMES C. RAVIS
SHliT II Q4r 4
SCHOELL & MAD$ON, INC.
ENGINEERS 'SURVEYORS 'PLARNERS
SOI~ ;ESFING 'EN¥1RQNMENTAL SERVICES
10580 WAYZAtA BOULEVARD, SUITE I
MINNETONK&, MINHE$OTA 55305
S.M.I. PROJECT NO. eOOS4.~t'~-~R~'~Y'~' 'OF'~ SREETS
$cole 1 Ir~ch ~ 50
LEGEH~
COFFI~M~ DEVELOPMENT
SHADOW RID~
S.U.t. Pm)J~CT NO. eld32-'d10 ~ il' ~F J,
~.~';' ,!, " ~ PIPER RIDGE LANE ........
,~ ~. ~'~ ~..,.,:.::..~.,, ~ .....
..." :~ x ,~<' ~ ' .~:~
', ~ , {~ r~['''~'~ .......
TANAGERS LANE
.......... ~,~' .~.:.::" ., ! '~""'" ! ,.,.,.. · ....... I .,.~ '~ z
,~,. ,:,::~?,~,, ......... ,.'~-~. . . ....... :? ..... ~:.. .:~.,
~ · , ........... , .....~ ..... . :~.t "]~ ', . '-
~ ~ , ..... ~.~.~.., .. .,,...,~,~..,.~.,...~
.....:.~.~ ~,
...... ~ ~ , ~' :c'